Last time we talked about the digitization of public opinions to form high level political decisions. Today's topic is a precursor to complete political de-stratfication, and more important, an example of computerized anarchy (something on word perversions to come) that has naturally evolved online already. Bit torrent. It's probably a large part of the reason that nearly all movies made in the last couple years were awful. A new form of somewhat legal but mostly illegal entertainment sharing that exemplifies the concept of many users contributing a small part to make a whole that can be shared with others- a form of computerized communism.
For what it is, bit torrent is amazing: all users seeking to download anything from "tank girl" to the entire career of a favorite band, can link with all other users who simultaneously take and give certain bandwidths of the recording so that all of them can get the complete version without paying a red cent (except for the cost of internet access). Users can even get movies the night that they arrive in theaters from the Russians. I wish to add here that I have never downloaded a recording via bit torrent and I do not intend to unless it becomes legal.
Essentially, all of the actors in Hollywood are going to go broke, this is evident in one new movie; "An American Carol" the worst movie that I ever watched the first fifteen minutes of. No sales means no profits, means no salaries... unless artists could appeal to their fans to pay them for acting on a donation basis. This brings us to another interesting consideration; if actors worked for donations each fan would contribute as much as it was worth to them, meaning that the supply would equal demand curves would line up and the maximum amount of fans could enjoy their favorite actors' work for the price that they are willing to pay.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Digital Democracy
Back in Ancient Athens the Greeks came up with an interesting idea to allow polis citizens to contribute to their own governance: Democracy.
This new and idealistic approach was intended to give a voice to each one of the people. There was one major flaw in their progressive new system: the vehicle for submission was cumbersome, you cannot hold a vote of the entire citizenry every time a decision is to be made. The solution devised by the Athenians was to design a structure within society where a few represented the wishes of all, thus the republic was born and a new subset of politics, the representative.
We all know about the pitfalls of relying on representatives: corruption threatens public interest, honesty and integrity come into question, and it is exclusive: if our district votes on a candidate who doesn’t represent our specific interests, then we are actually not represented- because we were the minority on election day.
One of the mechanisms of social manipulation that has become very prevalent is the questioning of one’s patriotism when they present a snag for government business as usual. When someone is questioning they are accused of being “un-American”, but I say, that there is not an attribute MORE American than questioning and investigating and re-evaluating the ways that are being used to accomplish our collective tasks (the aim of which should always be liberty).
Thus I am suggesting that there is a new era at our doorstep, one where the input of all is considered in political decision-making, an age of Digital Democracy. In this new period, we as citizens will not have to worry if our senator actually read a new law before voting on it. We can rest assured that our administrative resources are going to meet our needs: the public’s, not the domineering needs of a few wealthy, power-hungry men seeking world domination. This era is possible because of networked digital technology.
I am confident. We have learned a lot, we have grown; and one thing I keep seeing is that the average American or European does not wish harm on the average person living in a Middle-Eastern or African, or any other country. We generally express humanity in our desires for others to live and be free and enjoy happiness. With this new era, we can use our individual voices with collective force and ensure that our well intended hopes for others do not become perverted in the giant game of chess that world leaders typically play with lesser people’s lives.
Successful application of such a system will be a truly involved task, however, not only could we apply this new method of true democracy; as patriots we must, in this world of knowledge and power, take advantage of our new information transmission abilities in order to continue our forefathers' pursuits of freedom.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Our malignant banking system
I read in Financial Times, July 9th, that congress is essentially being blackmailed by our "Federal" bank.
Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who keeps running for president, has brought a resolution into the House of Representatives to create an oversight commitee called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. I advocated the development of this agency by signing a petition organized by the Consumer's Union.
In response, the vice-chairman of the Fed responded that any "congressional threat to curtail its independence would destabilise markets and raise the cost of servicing US debt for “current and future generations”."
The factor that was not specified in the article is that the fed determines interest rates, thus if congress decreases the Federal Reserve's unilateral control over the U.S. economy, the Fed is going to effectively punish the american people by increasing interest on our debt that we unconsititutionally maintain with our OWN federal bank, and increasing our income taxes.
The article closed by saying that Obama had put the Fed in charge of greater responsibilities under the supervision of the FDIC. I am diasppointed with Obama's decision, but understand that his idealism has encouraged him to bite-off more policy changes then he can chew, so until the healthcare issues get worked-out in congress he's putting the monetary fate of our nation on the back burner- a decision that doesn't make much sense since without a functional economy we can't provide healthcare: or maybe doctors will start taking government issued IOUs.
Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who keeps running for president, has brought a resolution into the House of Representatives to create an oversight commitee called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. I advocated the development of this agency by signing a petition organized by the Consumer's Union.
In response, the vice-chairman of the Fed responded that any "congressional threat to curtail its independence would destabilise markets and raise the cost of servicing US debt for “current and future generations”."
The factor that was not specified in the article is that the fed determines interest rates, thus if congress decreases the Federal Reserve's unilateral control over the U.S. economy, the Fed is going to effectively punish the american people by increasing interest on our debt that we unconsititutionally maintain with our OWN federal bank, and increasing our income taxes.
The article closed by saying that Obama had put the Fed in charge of greater responsibilities under the supervision of the FDIC. I am diasppointed with Obama's decision, but understand that his idealism has encouraged him to bite-off more policy changes then he can chew, so until the healthcare issues get worked-out in congress he's putting the monetary fate of our nation on the back burner- a decision that doesn't make much sense since without a functional economy we can't provide healthcare: or maybe doctors will start taking government issued IOUs.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Recession and cheap beer
Have you noticed that Busch beer is only $4/ six pack (at least at our liquor store) ...much to Adam's delight- he likes cheap beer.
I prefer to drink less quantities of more delectable beer so I'm in the boat with all the other people who are a little pissed about the hops shortage and the fact that a decent six pack costs 10 bucks. Particularly, because my very favorite beer ever, Orange Blossom has been altered to not my favorite beer- due, I believe, to a change in the hops variety used in the recipe... Buffalo Bills please change it back; I will pay an extra dollar.
Anyways onto the relevant topic of Busch beer being $4 and economics; that's pretty cheap, even for cheap beer. Why when all of the other brewers are increasing prices is Anheuser-Busch decreasing prices. Well when the economy is bad- like it is now, people feel, well, bad. And when we feel bad we drink more beer- there's that American escapism again.
Since every one's broke most people are more likely to drink cheap beer, thus much more Busch is sold for $.67 per beer, further increasing profits to the large domestic breweries and reducing profit to the delightful micro brews and increasing the probability that what happened to my favorite beer could happen to yours, but for your sake, I hope not.
I prefer to drink less quantities of more delectable beer so I'm in the boat with all the other people who are a little pissed about the hops shortage and the fact that a decent six pack costs 10 bucks. Particularly, because my very favorite beer ever, Orange Blossom has been altered to not my favorite beer- due, I believe, to a change in the hops variety used in the recipe... Buffalo Bills please change it back; I will pay an extra dollar.
Anyways onto the relevant topic of Busch beer being $4 and economics; that's pretty cheap, even for cheap beer. Why when all of the other brewers are increasing prices is Anheuser-Busch decreasing prices. Well when the economy is bad- like it is now, people feel, well, bad. And when we feel bad we drink more beer- there's that American escapism again.
Since every one's broke most people are more likely to drink cheap beer, thus much more Busch is sold for $.67 per beer, further increasing profits to the large domestic breweries and reducing profit to the delightful micro brews and increasing the probability that what happened to my favorite beer could happen to yours, but for your sake, I hope not.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
I actually do like doctors- mostly
This is a reconciliation for all of the unkind things that I've been saying about the health care industry.
I actually do like doctors; I acknowledge that doctors generally learn to practice medicine because they want to help people. It's not the individuals for the most part, it's the culture and the opportunistic profiteering within the hospital/ clinical/ insurance system and the level of resources that go to middle men between patients and their physicians that I criticize. It's poorly tested and improperly administered pharmacuticals, its a tendancy to push everyone through, to omit simpler diagnosic methods in favor of more invasive and costly diagnostic and treatment approaches.
Doctors are good people, usually they will listen to patients if the patients have an idea of how they want their healing to proceed. Patients are just as responsible if not more so then doctors for the assembly-line approach that's practiced today. I recently wrote an article for AlterMed's cIMc conference and referenced an interview of the keynote speaker, Dr. James S.Gordon Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2006. This physician is groundbreaking read about his ideas at: http://www.cmbm.org/mind_body_medicine_PRESS/Press/2006/conversations-AltTherapiesApril2006.pdf
by the way he's got credentials, including a degree from Harvard and a lot of other stuff, check it out.
I actually do like doctors; I acknowledge that doctors generally learn to practice medicine because they want to help people. It's not the individuals for the most part, it's the culture and the opportunistic profiteering within the hospital/ clinical/ insurance system and the level of resources that go to middle men between patients and their physicians that I criticize. It's poorly tested and improperly administered pharmacuticals, its a tendancy to push everyone through, to omit simpler diagnosic methods in favor of more invasive and costly diagnostic and treatment approaches.
Doctors are good people, usually they will listen to patients if the patients have an idea of how they want their healing to proceed. Patients are just as responsible if not more so then doctors for the assembly-line approach that's practiced today. I recently wrote an article for AlterMed's cIMc conference and referenced an interview of the keynote speaker, Dr. James S.Gordon Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2006. This physician is groundbreaking read about his ideas at: http://www.cmbm.org/mind_body_medicine_PRESS/Press/2006/conversations-AltTherapiesApril2006.pdf
by the way he's got credentials, including a degree from Harvard and a lot of other stuff, check it out.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Pharmacuticals
This is another post on Health care, it's not that this is a health care economics blog- it's that health care is important and the health care system is functioning at such a low efficiency and moral level that it's just really apparent that there needs to be critical analysis.
The Wall Street Journal reports that: Drug makers, facing declining sales in the U.S., have begun targeting the working poor in developing countries. When news like this is presented, it becomes clear that positive health outcomes are not the priority for pharmaceutical companies. This just proves that these greedy bastards are just modern apothecary hacks.
On a related note, did you know that: the vaccination schedule for today's children recommends over thirty shots before a child turns two; the time frame when over 80% of brain development occurs. Autism controversy aside (not enough conclusive research in any direction) the board of physicians who recommend under the guise of CDC these shots are many times the developers of the drugs themselves, and actually receive a cut for the price of each shot administered? Many others promoting these drugs are pharmaceutical reps. In my opinion, there is a massive conflict of interest and the future of our nation versus the astronomical profits of a few are at odds.
The Wall Street Journal reports that: Drug makers, facing declining sales in the U.S., have begun targeting the working poor in developing countries. When news like this is presented, it becomes clear that positive health outcomes are not the priority for pharmaceutical companies. This just proves that these greedy bastards are just modern apothecary hacks.
On a related note, did you know that: the vaccination schedule for today's children recommends over thirty shots before a child turns two; the time frame when over 80% of brain development occurs. Autism controversy aside (not enough conclusive research in any direction) the board of physicians who recommend under the guise of CDC these shots are many times the developers of the drugs themselves, and actually receive a cut for the price of each shot administered? Many others promoting these drugs are pharmaceutical reps. In my opinion, there is a massive conflict of interest and the future of our nation versus the astronomical profits of a few are at odds.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Ironic and AlterMed
As I sit here on 4thy of July Eve, I ponder the fate of our great nation and marvel at the irony that we celebrate our Independence with fireworks, BBQs, and beer- a symbol of Chinese ingenuity, American community, and American escapism. really how else could we? -It's truly perfect.
So I meant to post a diagram from the topic I discuss previously, "efficiency" I'll do that sometime, but I know all of you are beating down my blog to find out what new revelations I have, so I will continue to write in the mean time.
Great News!
One of the local non-profits here in FoCo, AlterMed Research Foundation is putting on the first bi-annual cIMc: Colorado Integrative Medicine Conference next weekend. We've been working very hard to get everything together and we have about 215 attendees and another week to reach our goal of 250+. AlterMed was founded to increase research into complementary and alternative medicine, if you are a practitioner and want to stay ahead of the mob you gotta go to: http://www.altermedresearch.org/ and register for the conference now, then book your flight to DIA if necessary, and call 1-800-44-Estes to book your room in Estes Park for the weekend of July 17-19, 2009. See you Saturday afternoon.
So I meant to post a diagram from the topic I discuss previously, "efficiency" I'll do that sometime, but I know all of you are beating down my blog to find out what new revelations I have, so I will continue to write in the mean time.
Great News!
One of the local non-profits here in FoCo, AlterMed Research Foundation is putting on the first bi-annual cIMc: Colorado Integrative Medicine Conference next weekend. We've been working very hard to get everything together and we have about 215 attendees and another week to reach our goal of 250+. AlterMed was founded to increase research into complementary and alternative medicine, if you are a practitioner and want to stay ahead of the mob you gotta go to: http://www.altermedresearch.org/ and register for the conference now, then book your flight to DIA if necessary, and call 1-800-44-Estes to book your room in Estes Park for the weekend of July 17-19, 2009. See you Saturday afternoon.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Theoretical example and alternative consideration
So, I got to thinking about how economists limit their ability to rationally cope with challenges (something that may present as problematic given the current economic situation) and thought of the Pareto possibilities curve. The Pareto possibilies curve is supposed to indicate a maximum (Pareto) efficiency division between two economic units, we'll call them people, that shows every possible allocation combination; with the main assumption being that when efficiency has been reached, you cannot allocate any more to one person without taking that amount from the other.
Now, let us consider a situation where the above assumptions create unnecessary limits.
Healthcare is a good topic presently under scrutiny from the public that we could base an analysis on. Many healthcare providers would argue that they are operating at maximum capacity and thus could not provide care to any additional patients without reducing care to existing patients. If they were opearting at Pareto Efficiency, this maybe the case, however if a provider was to allocate greater resources to diagnostic and preventative care they could essentially serve more patients in the long run without reducing quality of care to existing patients. Through elimination of many of the most costly and time consuming proceedures efficiency could be increased. Unfortunately the present healthcare system is not efficient, it's not even operating in a capitalist market, the present system is much more like a centrally-planned ogilopoly, which could also be defined as a cartel- an economic system that is actually illegal in the U.S.
Hummm,
I wonder why providers are not eager to replace specialized and extremely costly proceedures with less expensive and less invasive diagnostic and preventative care measures? Maybe because that's not profitable. OK, it suddenly becomes clear, economists are not interested in material efficiency their interested in marginal profits. Well here's the first piece of evidence that this "science" in its present form is not serving humanity, but rather serving those who look to maximize fiscal profits.
Now, let us consider a situation where the above assumptions create unnecessary limits.
Healthcare is a good topic presently under scrutiny from the public that we could base an analysis on. Many healthcare providers would argue that they are operating at maximum capacity and thus could not provide care to any additional patients without reducing care to existing patients. If they were opearting at Pareto Efficiency, this maybe the case, however if a provider was to allocate greater resources to diagnostic and preventative care they could essentially serve more patients in the long run without reducing quality of care to existing patients. Through elimination of many of the most costly and time consuming proceedures efficiency could be increased. Unfortunately the present healthcare system is not efficient, it's not even operating in a capitalist market, the present system is much more like a centrally-planned ogilopoly, which could also be defined as a cartel- an economic system that is actually illegal in the U.S.
Hummm,
I wonder why providers are not eager to replace specialized and extremely costly proceedures with less expensive and less invasive diagnostic and preventative care measures? Maybe because that's not profitable. OK, it suddenly becomes clear, economists are not interested in material efficiency their interested in marginal profits. Well here's the first piece of evidence that this "science" in its present form is not serving humanity, but rather serving those who look to maximize fiscal profits.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Credentials
I graduated from Colorado State University in May of 2008 with my Bachelor's degree in Economics.
While I admit that CSU is not the most prestigious school, and a bachelors degree is nowhere near the PhD that's generally required for an economist to make any sort of influential impact within the field, I have two things that many higher educated economists don't; common sense and compassion.
The first thing I wish to critique about the field of economics is the most central tenant and the generally accepted definition of economics: the study of choices in conditions of scarcity. So the primary assumption in economics is scarcity. Now I'm not making an outlandish claim that if you have five widgets, you actually have infinity, or that one person has unlimited time to do many things at once; these limits are simply material realities.
The point that I'm arguing here is that scarcity is not inevitable, the accepted beliefs that some must starve so others can feast or some must live in poverty so others can have luxury are incorrect, in fact, prosperity for all means that society as a whole is a happier, safer place, and leaves room for greater luxury for many. Greater luxury results from greater resources being allocated from subsistence (which despite popular belief is the modus operandi for most) to ingenuity.
While I admit that CSU is not the most prestigious school, and a bachelors degree is nowhere near the PhD that's generally required for an economist to make any sort of influential impact within the field, I have two things that many higher educated economists don't; common sense and compassion.
The first thing I wish to critique about the field of economics is the most central tenant and the generally accepted definition of economics: the study of choices in conditions of scarcity. So the primary assumption in economics is scarcity. Now I'm not making an outlandish claim that if you have five widgets, you actually have infinity, or that one person has unlimited time to do many things at once; these limits are simply material realities.
The point that I'm arguing here is that scarcity is not inevitable, the accepted beliefs that some must starve so others can feast or some must live in poverty so others can have luxury are incorrect, in fact, prosperity for all means that society as a whole is a happier, safer place, and leaves room for greater luxury for many. Greater luxury results from greater resources being allocated from subsistence (which despite popular belief is the modus operandi for most) to ingenuity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)